Targeted drugs (HR = 0.875, 95 CI: 0.779, 0.982; I2 = 78.5 , P = 0.001). In addition, the pooled HROS was found to be lower in trials applying bevacizumab (HR = 0.790, 95 CI: 0.674, 0.926; I2 = 0.0 ) than those applying other targeted drugs (HR = 0.969, 22948146 95 CI: 0.889, 1.057; I2 = 50.2 , P = 0.027). Analysis for previously-treated patients showed that pooled ORORR, HRPFS, and HROS were similar in trials applying bevacizumab versus other targeted drugs. For example, the ORORR was 2.(95 CI: 1.184, 3.404; I2 = 13.8 ) and 2.704 (95 CI: 1.349, 5.424; I2 = 82.4 ) for the two groups, respectively (P = 0.503); pooled HRPFS was 0.624 (95 CI: 0.524, 0.742; I2 = 0.0 ) and 0.831 (95 CI: 0.698, 0.989; I2 = 79.7 ), respectively (P = 0.022). And the pooled HROS was 0.936 (95 CI: 0.780, 1.124; I2 = 11.6 ) and 0.916(95 CI: 0.799, 1.051; I2 = 64.3 ), respectively (P 
= 0.853). ?In chemotherapy-naive patient, a meta-regression analysis showed that the overall lnHRPFS was negatively associated with the lnORORR (b = 20.251, P = 0.001; Figure 5 and Table 2). The subgroup analyses based on patient treatment status showed that the treatment of bevacizumab for previously-treatment patients was statistically different from those of other targeted drugs in terms of disease progression(P = 0.027). For 
HROS, we found ?similar results for both chemotherapy-naive patients and previously-treated patients (b = 0.374, P = 0.009; and b = 0.685, P = 0.020, Figure 5 and Table 2). Trials applying bevacizumab were marked in red and grey shaded areas with the confidence band for the regression line. The size of the circles represented the weight of each trial in the regression procedure. The AKT inhibitor 2 manufacturer Begg’s funnel 11967625 tests were conducted to demonstrate the influence of publication bias (figure 6). The p-values were 0.301, 0.159 and 0.851, respectively.DiscussionOur meta-analyses showed that compared to other commonly used targeted drugs, chemotherapy with bevacizumab significantly improved patients’ response rate, PFS and OS. The above findings were similar to previous findings [46]. In addition, bevacizumab provided significantly higher ORORR, lower HRPFS, and lower ?HROS among chemotherapy-naive patients, and lower HRPFS among previous treated patients. It was also found that in EGFRmutated patients, gefitinib significantly improved ORORR and reduces HRPFS. However, in general patients with EGFR status untested, bevacizumab showed a clear benefit in ORORR, HRPFS, as well as HROS, compared with gefitinib. These findings were consistent with previous order Pentagastrin publications [30]. Generally, mechanism of action of anticancer drugs was causing cancer cell death or blocking cancer cell growth. Objective response rate (ORR), which refers to the proportion of CR+PR, reflects the treatment effect by causing cancer cell death. On the other hand, SD reflects the treatment effect by blocking cancer cellThe Efficacy of Bevacizumab for Advanced NSCLCgrowth. Our meta-regression models were performed to decompose the two treatment mechanisms among NSCLC patients by introducing ln(ORORR) together with the bevacizumab indicator into the model. In these models we identified differences between the two types of targeted drugs in the contribution of blocking cell growth by estimating the adjusted bevacizumab effect, controlling the effect on contribution of killing tumor cells (ORORR). From the results (table 2), we found that in previously-treated patients, although bevacizumab was not outstanding in promoting benefi.Targeted drugs (HR = 0.875, 95 CI: 0.779, 0.982; I2 = 78.5 , P = 0.001). In addition, the pooled HROS was found to be lower in trials applying bevacizumab (HR = 0.790, 95 CI: 0.674, 0.926; I2 = 0.0 ) than those applying other targeted drugs (HR = 0.969, 22948146 95 CI: 0.889, 1.057; I2 = 50.2 , P = 0.027). Analysis for previously-treated patients showed that pooled ORORR, HRPFS, and HROS were similar in trials applying bevacizumab versus other targeted drugs. For example, the ORORR was 2.(95 CI: 1.184, 3.404; I2 = 13.8 ) and 2.704 (95 CI: 1.349, 5.424; I2 = 82.4 ) for the two groups, respectively (P = 0.503); pooled HRPFS was 0.624 (95 CI: 0.524, 0.742; I2 = 0.0 ) and 0.831 (95 CI: 0.698, 0.989; I2 = 79.7 ), respectively (P = 0.022). And the pooled HROS was 0.936 (95 CI: 0.780, 1.124; I2 = 11.6 ) and 0.916(95 CI: 0.799, 1.051; I2 = 64.3 ), respectively (P = 0.853). ?In chemotherapy-naive patient, a meta-regression analysis showed that the overall lnHRPFS was negatively associated with the lnORORR (b = 20.251, P = 0.001; Figure 5 and Table 2). The subgroup analyses based on patient treatment status showed that the treatment of bevacizumab for previously-treatment patients was statistically different from those of other targeted drugs in terms of disease progression(P = 0.027). For HROS, we found ?similar results for both chemotherapy-naive patients and previously-treated patients (b = 0.374, P = 0.009; and b = 0.685, P = 0.020, Figure 5 and Table 2). Trials applying bevacizumab were marked in red and grey shaded areas with the confidence band for the regression line. The size of the circles represented the weight of each trial in the regression procedure. The Begg’s funnel 11967625 tests were conducted to demonstrate the influence of publication bias (figure 6). The p-values were 0.301, 0.159 and 0.851, respectively.DiscussionOur meta-analyses showed that compared to other commonly used targeted drugs, chemotherapy with bevacizumab significantly improved patients’ response rate, PFS and OS. The above findings were similar to previous findings [46]. In addition, bevacizumab provided significantly higher ORORR, lower HRPFS, and lower ?HROS among chemotherapy-naive patients, and lower HRPFS among previous treated patients. It was also found that in EGFRmutated patients, gefitinib significantly improved ORORR and reduces HRPFS. However, in general patients with EGFR status untested, bevacizumab showed a clear benefit in ORORR, HRPFS, as well as HROS, compared with gefitinib. These findings were consistent with previous publications [30]. Generally, mechanism of action of anticancer drugs was causing cancer cell death or blocking cancer cell growth. Objective response rate (ORR), which refers to the proportion of CR+PR, reflects the treatment effect by causing cancer cell death. On the other hand, SD reflects the treatment effect by blocking cancer cellThe Efficacy of Bevacizumab for Advanced NSCLCgrowth. Our meta-regression models were performed to decompose the two treatment mechanisms among NSCLC patients by introducing ln(ORORR) together with the bevacizumab indicator into the model. In these models we identified differences between the two types of targeted drugs in the contribution of blocking cell growth by estimating the adjusted bevacizumab effect, controlling the effect on contribution of killing tumor cells (ORORR). From the results (table 2), we found that in previously-treated patients, although bevacizumab was not outstanding in promoting benefi.
